Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 14:09:48 GMT
"Obamacare" Was Unconstitutional IMHO But............ 26 States filed a lawsuit against provisions in the ACA and The US Supreme Court, with a few exceptions, disagreed. A couple more provisions have been addressed since then and I'll address two of the more relevant ones.
A lawsuit based upon the "Origination Clause" was filed (and I believe already dismissed by the Courts) that establishes that tax laws must originate in the House. Constitutional precedent has already established that this only applies to general taxation for general expenditures and because all "taxes" for "Obamacare" are dedicated to a specific program it is exempt from the "Origination Clause" in Article I of the US Constitution.
The other is a lawsuit challenging the "religious exemption" related to birth control and I do believe this has merit but the merit is juxtaposed to the complaint by the plaintiffs. Their argument is that any enterprise should be able to exclude birth control based upon the owner's religious beliefs. The opposite is actually true. The Religious Exemption should be struck down completely based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments. There should be no exemptions.
I don't believe there should be a "religious exemption" in "Obamacare" because simply providing the coverage does not mandate the use of that coverage by anyone. If a person has a religious objection to using birth control then they're not required to use it, period. Whether the insurance policy itself has that provision doesn't affect the person that doesn't believe in it.
At the same time any enterprise, including a church, that is required to provide health insurance for their employees should not be allowed to deny this benefit to the employee as that dictates the benefits of the person based upon the religious beliefs of the employer. It the employ wants to utilized the benefit based upon "their religious beliefs" they should not be denied based upon someone else's religious beliefs. Under the First Amendment protections of Religious Freedom on individual or organization should be allowed to force their religious beliefs upon another person and the "Religious Exception" allows this to occur. It should be struck down as Unconstitutional based upon the First Amendment. Only the "religious beliefs" of the employee matter and the religious organization or business owner should not be able to deny benefits to their employees based upon their personal religious beliefs. Providing the benefit itself doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs because the use of the benefit is based upon individual religious beliefs of the person covered by the policy.
Additionally the "Religious Exemption" violates the "equal protection clause" because it would prevent an employee of a "religious organization" or enterprise owned by a "religious person" from obtaining birth control if they choose to do so with the insurance where everyone else is provided with that coverage under their insurance. They would be required to "pay for it" when everyone else in America has it provided for by insurance and they would suffer a "financial loss" because of lack of coverage.
A lawsuit based upon the "Origination Clause" was filed (and I believe already dismissed by the Courts) that establishes that tax laws must originate in the House. Constitutional precedent has already established that this only applies to general taxation for general expenditures and because all "taxes" for "Obamacare" are dedicated to a specific program it is exempt from the "Origination Clause" in Article I of the US Constitution.
The other is a lawsuit challenging the "religious exemption" related to birth control and I do believe this has merit but the merit is juxtaposed to the complaint by the plaintiffs. Their argument is that any enterprise should be able to exclude birth control based upon the owner's religious beliefs. The opposite is actually true. The Religious Exemption should be struck down completely based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments. There should be no exemptions.
I don't believe there should be a "religious exemption" in "Obamacare" because simply providing the coverage does not mandate the use of that coverage by anyone. If a person has a religious objection to using birth control then they're not required to use it, period. Whether the insurance policy itself has that provision doesn't affect the person that doesn't believe in it.
At the same time any enterprise, including a church, that is required to provide health insurance for their employees should not be allowed to deny this benefit to the employee as that dictates the benefits of the person based upon the religious beliefs of the employer. It the employ wants to utilized the benefit based upon "their religious beliefs" they should not be denied based upon someone else's religious beliefs. Under the First Amendment protections of Religious Freedom on individual or organization should be allowed to force their religious beliefs upon another person and the "Religious Exception" allows this to occur. It should be struck down as Unconstitutional based upon the First Amendment. Only the "religious beliefs" of the employee matter and the religious organization or business owner should not be able to deny benefits to their employees based upon their personal religious beliefs. Providing the benefit itself doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs because the use of the benefit is based upon individual religious beliefs of the person covered by the policy.
Additionally the "Religious Exemption" violates the "equal protection clause" because it would prevent an employee of a "religious organization" or enterprise owned by a "religious person" from obtaining birth control if they choose to do so with the insurance where everyone else is provided with that coverage under their insurance. They would be required to "pay for it" when everyone else in America has it provided for by insurance and they would suffer a "financial loss" because of lack of coverage.